论文检索

Social Aspects/Everything Else

Yuanshao Zhu, Yongchao Ye, Ying Wu, Xiangyu Zhao, James Yu

Urban mobility analysis has been extensively studied in the past decade using a vast amount of GPS trajectory data, which reveals hidden patterns in movement and human activity within urban landscapes. Despite its significant value, the availability of such datasets often faces limitations due to privacy concerns, proprietary barriers, and quality inconsistencies. To address these challenges, this paper presents a synthetic trajectory dataset with high fidelity, offering a general solution to these data accessibility issues. Specifically, the proposed dataset adopts a diffusion model as its synthesizer, with the primary aim of accurately emulating the spatial-temporal behavior of the original trajectory data. These synthesized data can retain the geo-distribution and statistical properties characteristic of real-world datasets. Through rigorous analysis and case studies, we validate the high similarity and utility between the proposed synthetic trajectory dataset and real-world counterparts. Such validation underscores the practicality of synthetic datasets for urban mobility analysis and advocates for its wider acceptance within the research community. Finally, we publicly release the trajectory synthesizer and datasets, aiming to enhance the quality and availability of synthetic trajectory datasets and encourage continued contributions to this rapidly evolving field. The dataset is released for public online availability https://github.com/Applied-Machine-Learning-Lab/SynMob.

Social Aspects/Everything Else

Rohan Alur, Loren Laine, Darrick Li, Manish Raghavan, Devavrat Shah, Dennis Shung

High-stakes prediction tasks (e.g., patient diagnosis) are often handled by trained human experts. A common source of concern about automation in these settings is that experts may exercise intuition that is difficult to model and/or have access to information (e.g., conversations with a patient) that is simply unavailable to a would-be algorithm. This raises a natural question whether human experts add value which could not be captured by an algorithmic predictor.We develop a statistical framework under which we can pose this question as a natural hypothesis test. Indeed, as our framework highlights, detecting human expertise is more subtle than simply comparing the accuracy of expert predictions to those made by a particular learning algorithm. Instead, we propose a simple procedure which tests whether expert predictions are statistically independent from the outcomes of interest after conditioning on the available inputs (‘features’). A rejection of our test thus suggests that human experts may add value to any algorithm trained on the available data, and has direct implications for whether human-AI ‘complementarity’ is achievable in a given prediction task.We highlight the utility of our procedure using admissions data collected from the emergency department of a large academic hospital system, where we show that physicians’ admit/discharge decisions for patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding (AGIB) appear to be incorporating information that is not available to a standard algorithmic screening tool. This is despite the fact that the screening tool is arguably more accurate than physicians’ discretionary decisions, highlighting that – even absent normative concerns about accountability or interpretability – accuracy is insufficient to justify algorithmic automation.